Case - Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College and Others

C256/01 Allonby, Court Appeal and European Court of Justice - Robert Moretto

In light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in this case, the matter was remitted to the employment tribunal to determine whether the appellant was a worker within the meaning of Art.141 EC, whether the relevant pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman, and whether, if the scheme did have an adverse impact, it was justified.

The appellant employee (W) appealed against a decision dismissing her complaints alleging sex discrimination against the first and second respondents, and a complaint against the third respondent for having denied her access to the teacher's superannuation scheme. W's appeal had been stayed ([2001] EWCA Civ 529, (2001) ICR 1189), pending a reference to the European Court of Justice (C256/01 Allonby). Accordingly, in light of the ECJ's ruling, the court had to deal with consequential matters and make provisions for the determination of outstanding issues. Those issues had been: (a) whether W had been a worker within the meaning of Treaty of Rome, Art.141, as ruled by the ECJ; (b) if W had been a worker, whether the relevant pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman; and (c) if the scheme did have an adverse impact, whether it had been justified.


HELD: In light of the European Court of Justice's ruling it was appropriate to remit the case to the employment tribunal for determination of outstanding matters. The issues that required determination were: (i) whether W was a worker within the meaning of Art.141 as ruled by the ECJ; (ii) if W was a worker, whether the pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman; and (iii) if the scheme did have an adverse impact, whether it was justified.
Appeal allowed.

For related proceedings see Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2001) EWCA Civ 529, (2001) ICR 1189 and Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (C256/01)

Counsel:
For the appellant: Tess Gill, Robert Moretto
For the first and second respondents: Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Catherine Callaghan
For the third respondent: Christopher Vajda QC, Raymond Hill
Solicitors:
For the appellant: Michael Scott & Co
For the first and second respondents: Klegal
For the third respondent: Treasury Solicitor

LTL 25/11/2004 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
About cookies on our website

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)